[Cricket] T20 World Cup

[Pevenseagull]

FFS Cricket.

 

[Audax]

Wade dropped then goes 6 ... and 6 more, and finally 6 more to finish it off!

 

[bhafc99]

Boo.

 

[jakarta]

Come on New Zealand!

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

The worst part of this is having to look at Zampa's stupid mullet again in the final.

 

[Jeremiah]

England v N. Zealand & Pakistan v Australia . Groundhog Day.

 

[maltaseagull]

Wade dropped then goes 6 ... and 6 more, and finally 6 more to finish it off!

Talk about catches win matches!

Hassan Ali must be absolutely gutted.

..

 

[Gun shot]

Azeem Rafiq and his countrymen were subjected to hurtful comments by the Aussie batsmen during their defeat in the World T20 Cup semi-final.

"Being called bottlers, losers and chokers deeply hurt our feelings and we demand that Australia are thrown out of the tournament. It is totally unacceptable when we are just playing a game. It's just not cricket".

"We demand an apology and our rightful place in the World Cup final. Anything less and there is corruption deep rooted in the sport".

 

[Brownstuff]

The woeful catching of Pakistani players has always led to their downfall
It was always the same for our local cricket team
Otherwise they would be kings of this sport

 

[Is it PotG?]

Sunday afternoon will start with The Haka and a spin of my Kiri Te Kanawa LP.

Come on the Kiwis!

 

[Audax]

Interesting - Babar has said that Pakistan scored the runs they targeted before the innings started. Personally, from where they were I felt they ended up about 20 runs short (same as England the day before) of what would have been a par score given the conditions and the platform they'd built prior to the death overs. Cummins' over in the 19th proved key, and despite the 2 sixes at the end even the final over of Pakistan's innings felt like it didn't yield enough.

Australia then did the same as NZ the day before - made sure the RRR didn't blow out beyond 12 per over with 5 to go and powered home from there. Long gone are the days of 50 over cricket where a RRR of 12 per over with 5 to go meant the result was almost always secure. Modern T20 I think you're looking at 12 per over from the final 5 being 50-50 (depending on conditions, obviously).

 

[Bold Seagull]

Interesting - Babar has said that Pakistan scored the runs they targeted before the innings started. Personally, from where they were I felt they ended up about 20 runs short (same as England the day before) of what would have been a par score given the conditions and the platform they'd built prior to the death overs. Cummins' over in the 19th proved key, and despite the 2 sixes at the end even the final over of Pakistan's innings felt like it didn't yield enough.

Australia then did the same as NZ the day before - made sure the RRR didn't blow out beyond 12 per over with 5 to go and powered home from there. Long gone are the days of 50 over cricket where a RRR of 12 per over with 5 to go meant the result was almost always secure. Modern T20 I think you're looking at 12 per over from the final 5 being 50-50 (depending on conditions, obviously).

What is the stats of this World Cup now, is it something like 15 or 16 of 18 matches have been won batting second? The toss has proved to be a ridiculous advantage given conditions and scheduled times of play. Chasing in T20 is an advantage, no doubt about it. You can say that 16 losing teams all didn't get enough runs - but it is more complicated than that.

This is in essence the discussion we were having. Both Pakistan and England had their opposition 4 or 5 wickets down. Neither NZ or Aus had batting to come in that could chase 12 an over. What they had at the crease, had to win them the game. Pakistan dropped a crucial catch, England bowled a shocking over. That's all that was needed to tilt the balance. The result predictor had both Eng and Pak 60-40 to win their games with 24 balls left or so, statistically they were both ahead, but I do agree with you on the point that clearing the rope 2 or 3 times changes the picture hugely. And so both games swung.

I think both England and Pakistan had enough runs to bowl at and win the game, both gave themselves a great chance of winning it. But you don't win a semi-final chucking a load of straight short of a length medium pace garbage down the track, or dropping catches.

 

[Eeyore]

Looking forward to the final and hoping for a New Zealand win.

If anyone doesn't know what a decent team they are, in one vital over Rashid collided with one of their batsman who was in the way and they chose not to take the single. I can't think of any other nation that would have done that.

Baring a poor umpire's call in the WCF and and an unfortunate deflection they could have held all three titles come Sunday night. A team that is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[bhafc99]

Looking forward to the final and hoping for a New Zealand win.

If anyone doesn't know what a decent team they are, in one vital over Rashid collided with one of their batsman who was in the way and they chose not to take the single. I can't think of any other nation that would have done that.

Baring a poor umpire's call in the WCF and and an unfortunate deflection they could have held all three titles come Sunday night. A team that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Am tempted to wander down there tomorrow, it’s only a 30 minutes walk from my apartment, and see if there are any return tickets going. I suspect the UAE’s huge expatriate Indian and Pakistani populations bought many of them in anticipatory hope. Comparatively there are very few Aussies here, and hardly any Kiwis.

 

[bhafc99]

Am tempted to wander down there tomorrow, it’s only a 30 minutes walk from my apartment, and see if there are any return tickets going. I suspect the UAE’s huge expatriate Indian and Pakistani populations bought many of them in anticipatory hope. Comparatively there are very few Aussies here, and hardly any Kiwis.

Or Sunday even might be more helpful!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bold Seagull]

Looking forward to the final and hoping for a New Zealand win.

If anyone doesn't know what a decent team they are, in one vital over Rashid collided with one of their batsman who was in the way and they chose not to take the single. I can't think of any other nation that would have done that.

Baring a poor umpire's call in the WCF and and an unfortunate deflection they could have held all three titles come Sunday night. A team that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Whereas an Aussie player tried to move the boundary rope to stop a 4!!

 

[Audax]

What is the stats of this World Cup now, is it something like 15 or 16 of 18 matches have been won batting second? The toss has proved to be a ridiculous advantage given conditions and scheduled times of play. Chasing in T20 is an advantage, no doubt about it. You can say that 16 losing teams all didn't get enough runs - but it is more complicated than that.

This is in essence the discussion we were having. Both Pakistan and England had their opposition 4 or 5 wickets down. Neither NZ or Aus had batting to come in that could chase 12 an over. What they had at the crease, had to win them the game. Pakistan dropped a crucial catch, England bowled a shocking over. That's all that was needed to tilt the balance. The result predictor had both Eng and Pak 60-40 to win their games with 24 balls left or so, statistically they were both ahead, but I do agree with you on the point that clearing the rope 2 or 3 times changes the picture hugely. And so both games swung.

I think both England and Pakistan had enough runs to bowl at and win the game, both gave themselves a great chance of winning it. But you don't win a semi-final chucking a load of straight short of a length medium pace garbage down the track, or dropping catches.

NZ were only 2 down as they approached the death overs. They lost their 3rd in the 14th, 4th in the 16th, and 5th in the 18th. You could almost argue that losing the 4th wicket is what won them the game, as it brought Neesham to the crease. By the time Neesham was out in the 18th the game was pretty much done. Another key element for NZ is that one of their openers carried his bat - initially as the anchor, and then cutting loose at the end.

Australia were definitely in a shakier position, but also still had power hitters in the shed - Cummins and Starc can both clear the boundary (whether or not they would execute on the day I'd agree would be hit-or-miss). I think even if the Wade catch had been held, Australia were still in a 50-50 position to win it. Instead of 6,6,6 off those three, take say 2, 1, 2 and have Stoinis on strike needing 13 from the final over. That's squeaky bum time for both sides.

As for the result predictor - I was watching the cricinfo one in the Aus match. That late in the game the win% for both sides was up and down off the back of pretty much every delivery. Dot ball? Aus win% dropped 5%. Hit a 6? Aus win% went up 10%. From memory after Wade hit the first of those 3 sixes the Aus win% went from being less than 40% to over 80%. And that's the thing that late in a T20 game: it doesn't take much for the odds to shift in the favour of one team or another.

In England's case, they got done because Mitchell played a blinder. And then England's best bowler on the day (Livingston) ran out of overs too early. Similar for Pakistan: Shadab was their best on the day, and he was finished after the 13th. From there Australia played like they had nothing more to fear from the bowlers.

 

[Audax]

If anyone doesn't know what a decent team they are, in one vital over Rashid collided with one of their batsman who was in the way and they chose not to take the single. I can't think of any other nation that would have done that.

Got a lot of respect for the NZ team. Not many of their players would break into the sides of other top nations (Eng, Aus, Ind in particular) but they play so well as a team. It's rare that they have collective brain fade (unlike, say, the Aussies vs England or India at the start of the tournament). They work well to a collective team plan and have great game management.

 

[Bold Seagull]

NZ were only 2 down as they approached the death overs. They lost their 3rd in the 14th, 4th in the 16th, and 5th in the 18th. You could almost argue that losing the 4th wicket is what won them the game, as it brought Neesham to the crease. By the time Neesham was out in the 18th the game was pretty much done. Another key element for NZ is that one of their openers carried his bat - initially as the anchor, and then cutting loose at the end.

Australia were definitely in a shakier position, but also still had power hitters in the shed - Cummins and Starc can both clear the boundary (whether or not they would execute on the day I'd agree would be hit-or-miss). I think even if the Wade catch had been held, Australia were still in a 50-50 position to win it. Instead of 6,6,6 off those three, take say 2, 1, 2 and have Stoinis on strike needing 13 from the final over. That's squeaky bum time for both sides.

As for the result predictor - I was watching the cricinfo one in the Aus match. That late in the game the win% for both sides was up and down off the back of pretty much every delivery. Dot ball? Aus win% dropped 5%. Hit a 6? Aus win% went up 10%. From memory after Wade hit the first of those 3 sixes the Aus win% went from being less than 40% to over 80%. And that's the thing that late in a T20 game: it doesn't take much for the odds to shift in the favour of one team or another.

In England's case, they got done because Mitchell played a blinder. And then England's best bowler on the day (Livingston) ran out of overs too early. Similar for Pakistan: Shadab was their best on the day, and he was finished after the 13th. From there Australia played like they had nothing more to fear from the bowlers.

So going back to the discussion point, did England or Pakistan simply fail because of not posting enough? Or was it their ability with the ball? We could go round in circles all day. Both would have loved more runs I'm sure, but both more than capable of winning the game with what they had, both were 60% or so on the predictor with 24 balls left, and both bowled really poorly when it came to the death.

For me, and it's hypothetical, but England have seen out games bowling so much better than that in T20. With a side 4 down needing 57 off 24 balls, I'd back England 7 or 8 times out of 10 to win the game. In fact England were in a better position against SA at 110-3 in the 13th needing 80, than NZ were at 110 in the 17th needing 57, in fact England needed 45 runs from their 17th over when 4 down v SA - so actually NZ's win was tougher than England had v SA, who had 189 on the board.

 

[Brownstuff]

I bet New Zealand's Devon Conway wishes he can turn back time now.
He punched his own bat in frustration just after getting out against England.
Now found out he broke his hand as a result and misses the final.
Think we have all been there and done similar but for him worse timing of all.